Ramesh Chand vs State on 8 August, 2014
9. Order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Ld.MM clearly
indicate that arguments on charge have not been heard from the
Ramesh Chand Vs. The State & Ors.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1387 (1.48 seconds)Documents citing
Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013
V.Rathika vs The Principal Secretary on 30 April, 2014
32. In fact, this Court has closely perused the decisions accited on the
side of the petitioners/appellants to the effect that doctrine of waiver has no
application in cases of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. It
has already been pointed out that in the decisions relied upon on the side of
the petitioners /appellants, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High
Courts have held in accordance with circumstances of the case that question of
waiver does not arise. The factual situations found in those decisions are not
identical with that of the present petitions. Even at the risk of repetition,
the Court would like to point out that the factual premise exists in the
decision reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1613 [Ramesh Chandra Shah and others
V. Anil Joshi and others] is identical with the factual situation of the present
petitions. Therefore, this Court has completely followed the dictum given in the
decision reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1613. It has already been discussed
and ultimately found that in the instant case the fundamental rights of the
petitioners/appellants guaranteed either under Article 14 or under Article 16 of
the Constitution of India have not been infringed. The petitioners/appellants
have been given sufficient opportunity to take part in the examination conducted
for the post of District Educational Officer. But unfortunately they have not
been selected in view of existing arrangement mentioned in 200 point roster.
Ks J Kiran Mayi vs National Institute Of Nutrition on 12 December, 2023
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [Ramesh Chandra Shah
v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 :: (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] ,
candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the
State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held in
pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had
cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection
to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken
a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were
Page 15 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to
have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the
procedure of selection. This Court held that:
Dr. Kumar Chandan vs Indira Gandhi Institute Of Medical ... on 9 February, 2024
In view of the propositions laid down in the
above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken
part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the
recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.318 of 2021 dt. 09-02-2024
45/51
respondents had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for
making selection and the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
Qurat-Ul-Ain (Age 30 Years) vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 30 May, 2024
In Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others, (2013)
11 SCC 309, the Supreme Court has held that "by taking part in selection
process with full knowledge that recruitment was being made under particular
rules, the candidates had waived off their right to question advertisement or
methodology adopted by recruiting agency for making selection and that
learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court committed grave
error by entertaining grievance made by such candidates. A candidate who has
participated in selection process is estopped and has acquiesced himself form
questioning it thereafter".
Ram Janak Maurya And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic ... on 1 November, 2018
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that :
Rajesh S/O Shri Parasmal vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 August, 2022
"In view of the propositions laid
down in the above noted
judgments, it must be held that
by having taken part in the
process of selection with full
knowledge that the recruitment
was being made under the
General Rules, the respondents
had waived their right to
question the advertisement or
the methodology adopted by
(Downloaded on 26/08/2022 at 11:32:16 PM)
(9 of 9) [CW-5743/2021]
the Board for making selection
and the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the
High Court committed grave
error by entertaining the
grievance made by the
respondents."
Jitender Guleria vs Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha And ... on 10 August, 2017
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC
309, candidates who were competing for the post of
Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a
written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement.
This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the
respondents would not have raised any objection to the
selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having
taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents
were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would
be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the
advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held
that: (SCC p. 318, para 18)
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously
takes part in the process of selection cannot,
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP
13
thereafter, turn around and question the method of
selection and its outcome."
Chinta Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 December, 2025
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC
309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in
the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in
pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had
cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection
to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a
chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled
to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived
their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection.
Ashish Kumar Lakhera vs Northern Coalfields Ltd. on 16 January, 2025
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11
SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post
of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand
participated in a written examination held in pursuance
of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had
cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised
any objection to the selection process or to the
methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of
selection, it was held that the respondents were
disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be
deemed to have waived their right to challenge the
advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court
held that :